Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

On-axis afocal telescopes as framework for Cubesat based astronomical imagers and slit-less spectrographs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read On-axis afocal telescopes—two confocal paraboloids with a compressed collimated output—are proposed as the shared optical framework for Cubesat imagers and low-resolution slit-less spectrographs.

desk verdict A credible design study for afocal CubeSat telescopes; the steering analysis is solid and the template is genuinely new, but missing prescriptions and a primary-secondary tolerance budget keep it a strong referee candidate rather than a finished recipe. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08323 v1 pith:ZHUH2MQX submitted 2025-07-11 astro-ph.IM

Anwesh Kumar Mishra , Gourav Banerjee , Rekhesh Mohan , Maheswar Gopinathan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords afocaltelescopeCubesatfinesteeringmirrorslit-lessspectrographopticaldesignastronomicalinstrumentationspace-basedastronomyphotometricmonitoring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that small satellites in the Cubesat format should use on-axis afocal telescopes as their standard optical front end, rather than conventional telescope plus collimator designs. An afocal telescope made of two confocal paraboloids outputs a collimated, pupil-compressed beam, which removes the collimator group from the optical chain and creates a natural place for filters, gratings, and fine steering mirrors. The paper claims this layout is better suited to the tight 12U envelope because it reduces component count, lets one standardized telescope serve many different instruments, and allows simple off-the-shelf tip-tilt mirrors to hold stable pointing. If the claim is right, Cubesat imagers and slit-less spectrographs would gain roughly 0.5 to 0.7 magnitudes of sensitivity over conventional slit spectrographs and would be faster and cheaper to develop and test.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the afocal telescope itself, a Mersenne arrangement of two confocal paraboloids: a concave parabolic primary and a convex parabolic secondary that share a common focus. It produces a collimated, pupil-compressed beam immediately after the secondary, without any additional collimator optics, and that collimated section is what carries the framework's advantages. The beam compression ratio C = D/d = Fp/Fs determines how the camera's focal length maps to the telescope's effective focal length, and the collimated section is where filters, grisms, and fine steering mirrors are placed. Its key property is that steering within a collimated beam makes the effective steering distance infinite, so the parasitic motions and defocus that plague steering mirrors in converging beams essentially vanish, allowing simple off-the-shelf tip-tilt mirrors to be used.

What would settle it

Build a prototype afocal telescope with the specified commercial mirrors and measure the double-pass wavefront with the interferometric setup shown in figure 20a; if the measured wavefront error exceeds the budget implied by the tolerance table and RMS spot sizes, the claimed near-diffraction-limited performance and throughput advantage do not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a Cubesat observatory can be built as an afocal telescope followed by interchangeable camera optics, with the afocal telescope itself kept fixed across instruments. The afocal configuration consists of a parabolic primary and a convex parabolic secondary sharing one focus; the secondary re-collimates the starlight while compressing the beam by a ratio C = D/d = Fp/Fs, where D and d are the primary and secondary diameters and Fp and Fs their focal lengths. The final focal length and plate scale are then set by the camera optics, F_telescope = C * F_camera. Because the beam is collimated, the effective distance from the steering mirror to the image plane is effectively infinite, so steering with a flat mirror does not produce the out-of-plane image-plane rotation or rotation-axis-offset defocus that degrades spots when steering in a converging beam. The paper demonstrates via ray-trace spot diagrams that such designs can be optimized close to diffraction-limited over 20 to 30 arcminutes, and it presents two 12U templates: one using four 10 cm aperture telescopes and another using a single 20 cm aperture telescope. On the strength of these designs, the paper claims a throughput advantage of about 20 percent over conventional layouts and a 0.5 to 0.7 magnitude sensitivity gain for slit-less spectrographs, which have 100 percent slit transmission compared with roughly 60 percent for slit-based systems.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's load-bearing premise is that the off-the-shelf fast parabolic primaries (10 cm at F1 and 20 cm at F0.8) and the matching convex parabolic secondary can be manufactured, aligned, and athermalized to near-diffraction-limited performance over a 20 to 30 arcminute field inside the 12U Cubesat volume, with the paper providing ray-trace and tolerance estimates but no measured wavefront error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same off-the-shelf parabolic primary and matching convex secondary can be kept fixed while camera optics are swapped to switch between visible imaging, NIR imaging, NUV imaging, NUV/FUV spectroscopy, and spectropolarimetry.
  • A fine steering mirror in the collimated beam can be a simple commercial tip-tilt device, and the RMS spot growth with steering angle is much smaller than for steering mirrors placed in converging beams.
  • Slit-less spectrographs built this way have perfect slit transmission and about 20 percent higher throughput than conventional slit spectrographs, yielding roughly 0.5 to 0.7 magnitudes of sensitivity gain at low and medium resolution.
  • The telescope and camera become independently alignable, tolerating a few millimeters of defocus and about 100 microns of decenter between them, and in the 2U template the steering mirror can compensate initial bench tilt.
  • Ray-trace spot diagrams place the designs close to diffraction-limited over 20 to 30 arcminutes, so the templates would make 12U Cubesats viable for long-duration monitoring, asteroseismology, and bright-source UV spectroscopy.
  • When paired with suitable small-format detectors, the same afocal front end can cover wavelength ranges from the far ultraviolet through the near infrared, with fully reflective cameras avoiding chromatic aberration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implicit corollary is that the main cost savings may come not from the optics themselves but from reusing qualification, alignment, and laboratory testing procedures across many missions once one afocal telescope design is validated.
  • The 0.5 to 0.7 magnitude advantage is computed against slit-based spectrographs; in crowded fields the slit-less design loses signal to overlapping spectra, so the actual gain will depend on target field density and could be smaller or negative.
  • The paper's double-pass interferometric test setup could be developed into an acceptance test for the commercial parabolic primaries; a natural next step is a prototype wavefront measurement, which the paper does not include.
  • One testable extension is to measure how the full system's spectral resolution depends on steering error using the stated formula and the 1-arcsecond guiding target; the paper derives the relation but does not demonstrate it on hardware.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for CubeSat astronomical payloads based on on-axis afocal telescopes: a fixed off-the-shelf fast parabolic primary and a matching convex parabolic secondary produce a compressed collimated beam, followed by interchangeable camera optics for imagers and slit-less spectrographs. It argues that this arrangement reduces component count, standardizes the telescope across instruments, and allows fine steering with a tip-tilt mirror in the collimated beam without the aberrations that plague steering in converging beams. The paper presents two 12U templates (four 10-cm apertures and one 20-cm aperture), several refractive and reflective camera designs with spot diagrams, SNR estimates for example science cases (Walraven photometry, FUV/NUV spectroscopy, spectropolarimetry), a tolerancing table, vibration-mode FEA, and laboratory test concepts. A prescription is given for one guide camera in Appendix A.

Significance. If the feasibility claims hold, the proposal is a useful contribution to small-satellite instrumentation: standardizing a fast afocal front end could reduce development cost and enable compact slit-less spectrographs with good throughput. The beam-steering analysis in Section 3 is physically sound, and the claimed advantage of steering in a collimated section is well supported by the spot simulations in Figures 3 and 4. The SNR estimates are transparent in their assumed efficiencies, and the FEA includes a mesh-convergence check. The main reservation is that the load-bearing alignment tolerance of the afocal telescope itself is not yet quantified, and the provided prescriptions are insufficient to reproduce the designs; the paper is a promising design study rather than a demonstrated instrument.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, Table 4, Eq. (1)] The stated 'few mm' defocus tolerance between the afocal telescope and the camera is not the relevant tolerance for the afocal telescope itself; the primary-secondary spacing is the load-bearing alignment. Using the parameters implied by the 1U template (Fp = 100 mm, C ≈ 8, Fs ≈ 12.5 mm, d ≈ 12.5 mm), an axial shift δ of the secondary produces an output beam divergence θ ≈ (d/2)δ/Fs² ≈ 4×10⁻⁵ δ rad (δ in µm), which for the F7 visible camera (f ≈ 87.5 mm) yields an image smear of about 3.5 µm per µm of δ. For the 2U NUV spectrograph (Fs ≈ 40 mm, d ≈ 50 mm, f ≈ 465 mm), the smear is about 7 µm per µm of δ, so the allowable shift before the smear exceeds the stated 13-14 µm spot size is only a few microns. Table 4 reports overall RMS degradation with paraxial focus as compensator and does not isolate the secondary-spacing contribution, and no thermal analysis or measured wavefront is given. The manuscript should add an explicit tolerance and athermalization budget for the afocal telescope and show that standard RC-type optomechanics can hold the primary-secondary spacing to this level.
  2. [Appendix A; Sections 4.1, 4.2] The only full optical prescription in the paper is for the 3-lens catadioptric guide camera (Appendix A, Table 5), which is not one of the afocal designs that define the proposed framework. The afocal telescope itself—the standardized primary/secondary combination that all other designs share—is described only by conic constants and focal lengths, and the science cameras and spectrographs in Figures 8, 9, 14, and 17 have no prescriptions. Consequently, the spot diagrams cannot be independently reproduced, and the claimed use of the same off-the-shelf primary and secondary cannot be checked. At minimum, the afocal telescope prescription (mirror conics, spacing, and alignment tolerances) and one representative science camera should be provided in an appendix or as supplementary data.
  3. [Figure 16c and Section 4.3] The 0.5-0.7 magnitude sensitivity gain is a headline quantitative claim, but Figure 16c is not derived in the text. The text mentions a 20% throughput gain from omitting the collimator and a 100% versus 60% slit transmission, but the calculation combining these terms and converting them to a magnitude difference is not shown. Please present the explicit comparison model, including the assumed efficiencies and their uncertainties, so the claimed gain can be assessed and reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 and Section 3.1] The text refers to the out-of-plane rotation as illustrated in '(d)', but the corresponding subfigure is labeled '(c)'; please reconcile the callouts and captions.
  2. [Equation (19)] Equation (19) introduces λS, which is not defined; the surrounding text uses λspan for the wavelength span. Please define the notation consistently.
  3. [Table 4] The table cites the Edmund Optics high-precision standard, but the individual tolerances applied to each surface (radius, thickness, tilt, decenter) are not listed; please include the specific tolerance values or a precise reference.
  4. [Table 1] The probability P of finding at least one guide star is called a conservative lower bound, but the calculation (stellar density model, integration time, SNR threshold) is not described; please provide the details.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors and inconsistent terminology (e.g., 'di fficult', 'uising', 'magneto-toqruers', 'CUBESAT' versus 'Cubesat'); a careful copy edit is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the afocal beam-compression, steering, and sensitivity claims follow from stated classical optics and explicitly declared efficiency assumptions, not from fitted outputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The load-bearing derivation chain is self-contained. The afocal principle (Eq. 1) is classical confocal-paraboloid beam compression, with the on-axis aberration-free property stated from conjugate-point imaging and then quantified by ray-traced spot diagrams; those spot diagrams and the Edmund-Optics-style tolerancing table are model outputs, not fitted parameters. The steering equations (Eqs. 5-12) are geometric/paraxial results, and the comparative RMS-spot simulations use explicitly described layouts, so the conclusion that steering in a collimated section avoids field-dependent defocus follows from the model setup rather than from tuning to a desired answer. The SNR, limiting-magnitude, and 0.5-0.7 magnitude slit-less sensitivity estimates are arithmetic consequences of nominal efficiencies stated in the captions (e.g., 50% detector QE, 60% grating efficiency, 25% optical throughput, 100% vs 60% slit transmission), not fitted to data. Self-citations (e.g., Banerjee et al. 2021, 2022, 2024; Mishra & Kamath 2022) appear only in science-case motivation, and the IIA references (Chandra P et al. 2024a,b) support component availability rather than the optical derivation. The paper's own caveats—no measured wavefront, no prototype alignment, required primary-secondary alignment/athermalization, and illustrative FEA—are explicit feasibility limitations, not circular reductions. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on classical afocal optics and several engineering assumptions about commercial mirror quality, nominal efficiencies, and pointing-loop performance. All are declared or traceable in the text; none are hidden fitted parameters. No invented entities appear.

free parameters (4)
  • Total optical throughput = 25-40% depending on design
    Used in SNR and limiting-magnitude estimates (Figures 11, 16, 18); chosen as nominal, not measured for the proposed payload.
  • Detector quantum efficiency = 50% in NUV, 70-80% in VIS-NIR
    Assumed for all SNR calculations; not tied to radiometric measurements of selected sensors.
  • Grating efficiency = 60%
    Assumed for the 2U spectrograph SNR analysis in Figure 16.
  • Wollaston prism efficiency = 0.2 to 0.4 in three scenarios
    Used to compute spectropolarimeter limiting magnitudes in Figure 18c; explicitly optimistic, conservative, and pessimistic assumptions.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Two confocal paraboloids yield aberration-free on-axis imaging and pupil compression, with usable performance to 20-30 arcmin.
    Stated in Section 2 and traced to Baker (1969); off-axis performance is evidenced only by spot diagrams, not closed-form.
  • domain assumption Tip-tilt steering in a collimated beam introduces no defocus or out-of-plane rotation at the image plane.
    Central to Section 3; exact for a perfect plane wave, approximate for a real afocal output with residual aberration and pupil shear.
  • domain assumption Off-the-shelf fast parabolic primaries (10 cm F1 and 20 cm F0.8) have sufficient figure accuracy and can be aligned within the stated tolerances.
    Sections 4.1 and 4.2 select these mirrors for all templates; no measured surface error or alignment test is provided.
  • domain assumption Assumed throughput and detector efficiencies are representative for the planned coatings, gratings, and sensors.
    SNR limits in Figures 11, 16, and 18 depend on these nominal values; they are not established by measurement.
  • domain assumption The fine pointing loop can reach about 1 arcsecond stability starting from 2 to 3 arcmin coarse ADCS.
    Required by the spectrograph resolution budget in Equation 16 and Tables 1 and 2; no on-orbit demonstration is cited.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On-axis afocal telescopes as framework for Cubesat based astronomical imagers and slit-less spectrographs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZHUH2MQX

@misc{pith2026250708323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On-axis afocal telescopes as framework for Cubesat based astronomical imagers and slit-less spectrographs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZHUH2MQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08323}
}
read the original abstract

Cubesats present unique opportunities for observational astronomy in the modern era. They are useful in observing difficult-to-access wavelength regions and long-term monitoring of interesting astronomical sources. However, conventional telescope designs are not necessarily the best fit for restricted envelope of a Cubesat. Additionally, fine-pointing stability on these platforms is difficult due to the low mass of the spacecraft and special allocations within the optical design are needed to achieve stable pointing. We propose afocal telescope designs as the framework to realise imagers and low-resolution spectrographs on Cubesat platforms. These designs help reduce the number of components in the optical chain and aim to improve throughput and sensitivity compared to conventional designs. Additionally, they also provide a fine steering mechanism within a collimated beam section. Fine beam steering within the collimated beam section avoids issues of image degradation due to out-of-plane rotation of the image plane or offset in the rotation axis of the mirror. This permits the use of simple and mostly off-the-shelf tip-tilt mirrors for beam steering. The designs discussed here also allow for a standard telescope design to be used in many instrument types; thus reducing the complexity as well as the development time and cost. The optical design, performance and SNR estimations of these designs along with some interesting science cases are discussed. A number of practical aspects in implementation such as guiding, tolerancing, choice of detectors, vibration analysis and laboratory test setups are also presented.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001

    Aerts, C. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001

    2021

  2. [2]

    R., Licandro, J., Serra-Ricart, M., et al

    Alarcon, M. R., Licandro, J., Serra-Ricart, M., et al . 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 055001

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 5927

    Anusha, R., Mathew, B., Shridharan, B., et al . 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 5927

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    2009, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 506, 411

    Auvergne, M., Bodin, P., Boisnard, L., et al. 2009, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 506, 411

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    2007, in Cryogenic optical systems and instruments XII, V ol

    Bagnasco, G., Kolm, M., Ferruit, P., et al . 2007, in Cryogenic optical systems and instruments XII, V ol. 6692, SPIE, 174–187

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Baker, J. G. 1969, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 261

    work page 1969

  7. [7]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10339

    Banerjee, G., Mathew, B., Bhattacharyya, S., et al . 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10339

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    2022, Journal of Astrophysics and As- tronomy, 43, 102

    Banerjee, G., Mathew, B., Paul, K., Subramaniam, A., & Balan, A. 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and As- tronomy, 43, 102

    work page 2022

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 3926

    Banerjee, G., Mathew, B., Paul, K., et al . 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 3926

    2021

  2. [10]

    2022, Publica- tions of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 065001

    Batty, K., Steele, I., & Copperwheat, C. 2022, Publica- tions of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 065001

    2022

  3. [11]

    1988, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 11, 119

    Beals, G., Crum, R., Dougherty, H.,et al. 1988, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 11, 119

    1988

  4. [12]

    2023, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 670, A119

    Betoule, M., Antier, S., Bertin, E., et al. 2023, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 670, A119

    2023

  5. [13]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 3660

    Bhattacharyya, S., Mathew, B., Banerjee, G., et al . 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 3660

    2021

  6. [14]

    P., Piergentili, F., & Santoni, F

    Candini, G. P., Piergentili, F., & Santoni, F. 2012, Acta Astronautica, 81, 325 Chandra P, B., Nair, B. G., Jain, S.,et al. 2024a, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Sys- tems, 10, 026002 Chandra P, B., Nair, B., Ghatul, S. J.,et al. 2024b, Jour- nal of Astro...

    2012

  7. [15]

    2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Sys- tems, 6, 034003 De Maeyer, J., Raskin, G., Vandenbussche, B., &

    Clermont, L., Languy, F., & Georges, M. 2020, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Sys- tems, 6, 034003 De Maeyer, J., Raskin, G., Vandenbussche, B., &

    2020

  8. [16]

    2024, Journal of Astronomical Tele- scopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 034005

    Vandepitte, D. 2024, Journal of Astronomical Tele- scopes, Instruments, and Systems, 10, 034005

    2024

  9. [17]

    J., Wolf, A

    Dennehy, C. J., Wolf, A. A., Wu, A., et al . 2020, Ap- plication of micro-thruster technology for space ob- servatory pointing stability, Tech. rep

    2020

  10. [18]

    S., Tracy, K., & Manchester, Z

    Douglas, E. S., Tracy, K., & Manchester, Z. 2021, Fron- tiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 676252

    2021

  11. [19]

    G., Guinan, E

    Engle, S. G., Guinan, E. F., Harper, G. M., Neilson, H. R., & Evans, N. R. 2014, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 794, 80

    2014

  12. [20]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 2401

    Fitzpatrick, E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 2401

    2010

  13. [21]

    T., France, K., Nell, N., et al

    Fleming, B. T., France, K., Nell, N., et al. 2017, in UV , X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XX, V ol. 10397, SPIE, 377–387

    2017

  14. [22]

    L., Haag, C., Mandic, M.,et al

    Flinois, T. L., Haag, C., Mandic, M.,et al. 2022, in Pro- ceedings of the 44th Annual American Astronautical Society Guidance, Navigation, and Control Confer- ence, 2022, Springer, 1415–1431

    2022

  15. [23]

    Hagen, N., & Tkaczyk, T. S. 2011, Applied optics, 50, 4998

    2011

  16. [24]

    2022, Foundations of Optical System Analy- sis and Design (CRC Press)

    Hazra, L. 2022, Foundations of Optical System Analy- sis and Design (CRC Press)

    2022

  17. [25]

    2015, Exper- imental Astronomy, 39, 595 J

    Helhel, S., Khamitov, I., Kahya, G., et al. 2015, Exper- imental Astronomy, 39, 595 J. Astrophys. Astr .(0000)000: #### Page 31 of 1 ####

    2015

  18. [26]

    2016, in 67th International As- tronautical Congress

    Herrera-Arroyave, J., Berm ´udez-Reyes, B., Ferrer- P´erez, J., & Col´ın, A. 2016, in 67th International As- tronautical Congress. Guadalajara, Mexico, 1–5

    2016

  19. [27]

    M., Neuhaeuser, R., & Schutz, B

    Hohle, M. M., Neuhaeuser, R., & Schutz, B. F. 2010, Masses and luminosities of O-and B-type stars and red supergiants

    2010

  20. [28]

    2018, Sensors, 18, 106

    Jin, J., Zhang, T., Kong, L., & Ma, K. 2018, Sensors, 18, 106

    2018

  21. [29]

    Johnston-Lemke, B., Sarda, K., Grant, C., & Zee, R. 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Kallinger, T., & Weiss, W. W. 2005, in High Resolution Infrared Spectroscopy in Astronomy: Proceedings of an ESO Workshop Held at Garching, Germany, 18- 21 November 2003, Springer, 443–450

    2005

  23. [31]

    2015, Optical Payloads for Space Missions, 783

    Kimura, S., Narumi, T., Aoyanagi, Y ., & Nakasuka, S. 2015, Optical Payloads for Space Missions, 783

    2015

  24. [32]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 526, A116

    Kovtyukh, V ., Wallerstein, G., Andrievsky, S., et al . 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 526, A116

    2011

  25. [33]

    2018, Ap- plied Physics Reviews, 5

    Levchenko, I., Bazaka, K., Ding, Y ., et al . 2018, Ap- plied Physics Reviews, 5

    2018

  26. [34]

    D., Holt, A

    Liddle, J. D., Holt, A. P., Jason, S. J., O’Donnell, K. A., & Stevens, E. J. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1026

    2020

  27. [35]

    P., Baker, J

    Lourie, N. P., Baker, J. W., Burruss, R. S., et al. 2020, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, V ol. 11447, SPIE, 2064–2077

    2020

  28. [36]

    Mahajan, V . N. 1998, Optical imaging and aberrations: Ray geometrical optics (SPIE press)

    1998

  29. [37]

    2007, Wiely Interscience Mandi´c, M., Alvarez-Salazar, O., & Kiessling, A

    Malacara, D. 2007, Wiely Interscience Mandi´c, M., Alvarez-Salazar, O., & Kiessling, A. A. 2018, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, V ol. 10698, SPIE, 296–305

    2007

  30. [38]

    2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1108.5850

    Mathew, B., & Subramaniam, A. 2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1108.5850

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13491 Milaˇseviˇcius, M., & Maˇciulis, L

    Mellier, Y ., Barroso, J., Ach ´ucarro, A., et al . 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13491 Milaˇseviˇcius, M., & Maˇciulis, L. 2023, Aerospace, 11, 5

    2024

  32. [40]

    K., & Kamath, U

    Mishra, A. K., & Kamath, U. 2022, Journal of Astro- physics and Astronomy, 43, 13

    2022

  33. [41]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 942

    Molinaro, R., Ripepi, V ., Marconi, M., et al . 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 942

    2011

  34. [42]

    E., Douglas, E

    Morgan, R. E., Douglas, E. S., Allan, G. W.,et al. 2019, Micromachines, 10, 366

    2019

  35. [43]

    2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Opti- cal, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, V ol

    Nowak, M., Lacour, S., Lapeyr `ere, V .,et al . 2016, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Opti- cal, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, V ol. 9904, SPIE, 1507–1513

    2016

  36. [44]

    1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supple- ment Series, 123, 589

    Oliva, E. 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supple- ment Series, 123, 589

    1997

  37. [45]

    1985, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol

    Onnembo, A., Buonaura, B., Caccin, B., Russo, G., & Sollazzo, C. 1985, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 152, no. 2, Nov. 1985, p. 349-356. Research supported by the University of Victoria, Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, NSERC, and CNR., 152, 349

    1985

  38. [46]

    2007, in New Devel- opments in Optomechanics, V ol

    Ostaszewski, M., & Vermeer, W. 2007, in New Devel- opments in Optomechanics, V ol. 6665, SPIE, 96–105

    2007

  39. [47]

    S., Paul, T., & Cun- ningham, C

    Pain, I., Stobie, B., Wright, G. S., Paul, T., & Cun- ningham, C. R. 2003, in IR Space Telescopes and

    2003

  40. [48]

    2023, ADCS-Spacecraft Attitude Deter- mination and Control (Elsevier)

    Paluszek, M. 2023, ADCS-Spacecraft Attitude Deter- mination and Control (Elsevier)

    2023

  41. [49]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 479, 1685

    Papoular, R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 479, 1685

    2018

  42. [50]

    2023, in 13th European CubeSat Sympo- sium, Date: 2023/12/11-2023/12/13, Location: Leu- ven (Belgium)

    Peri, L., De Maeyer, J., De Munter, W., & Vande- pitte, D. 2023, in 13th European CubeSat Sympo- sium, Date: 2023/12/11-2023/12/13, Location: Leu- ven (Belgium)

    2023

  43. [51]

    2017, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 88, 59

    Poghosyan, A., & Golkar, A. 2017, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 88, 59

    2017

  44. [52]

    2018, in 32nd Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites

    Pong, C. 2018, in 32nd Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites

    2018

  45. [53]

    M., & Rivinius, T

    Porter, J. M., & Rivinius, T. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 1153

    2003

  46. [54]

    2022, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, V ol

    Raskin, G., de Maeyer, J., Vandenbussche, B., et al . 2022, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, V ol. 12180, SPIE, 1080–1087

    2022

  47. [55]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al . 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instru- ments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  48. [56]

    C., & Martayan, C

    Rivinius, T., Carciofi, A. C., & Martayan, C. 2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 1 #### Page 32 of 1 J. Astrophys. Astr .(0000) 000: ####

    2013

  49. [57]

    2004, in

    Rowlands, N., Aldridge, D., Allen, R., et al . 2004, in

    2004

  50. [58]

    5487, SPIE, 664–675 Samus’, N., Kazarovets, E., Durlevich, O., Kireeva, N., & Pastukhova, E

    Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Space Telescopes, V ol. 5487, SPIE, 664–675 Samus’, N., Kazarovets, E., Durlevich, O., Kireeva, N., & Pastukhova, E. 2017, Astronomy Reports, 61, 80

    2017

  51. [59]

    2012, in OFS2012 22nd International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors, V ol

    Sanders, S., Taranta, A., Mosor, S., et al . 2012, in OFS2012 22nd International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors, V ol. 8421, SPIE, 75–78

    2012

  52. [60]

    2020, Nature As- tronomy, 4, 1031

    Serjeant, S., Elvis, M., & Tinetti, G. 2020, Nature As- tronomy, 4, 1031

    2020

  53. [61]

    Shkolnik, E. L. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 374

    2018

  54. [62]

    2024, Deep Purple Payload Qualifies for NASA Launch, Could Provide New Method for Real-Time Space-Domain

    Smilo, J., Ravizza, F., Ganino, J., et al . 2024, Deep Purple Payload Qualifies for NASA Launch, Could Provide New Method for Real-Time Space-Domain

    2024

  55. [63]

    1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol

    Sollazzo, C., Russo, G., Onnembo, A., & Caccin, B. 1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 99, no. 1, June 1981, p. 66-72. Research supported by the Con- siglio Nazionale delle Ricerche., 99, 66

    1981

  56. [64]

    2022, Pub- lications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114506 ter Horst, R., & Navarro, R

    Sreejith, A., Fossati, L., Ambily, S., et al . 2022, Pub- lications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 134, 114506 ter Horst, R., & Navarro, R. 2024, in Advances in Opti- cal and Mechanical Technologies for Telescopes and Instrumentation VI, V ol. 13100, SPIE, 1197–1207

    2022

  57. [65]

    Terebizh, V . Y . 2019, Survey Telescope Optics (SPIE press) Van Amerongen, S., Damen, E., Groot, M., Kraakman, H., & Van Paradijs, J. 1987, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 225, 93 Van Paradijs, J., Van Amerongen, S., Damen, E., & Van der Woerd, H. 1986, Ast...

    2019

  58. [66]

    1952, MNASSA: Monthly Notes of the Astronomical Society of South Africa, 11, 36

    Walraven, T. 1952, MNASSA: Monthly Notes of the Astronomical Society of South Africa, 11, 36

    1952

  59. [67]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 35 Warren Jr, W., & Ho ffleit, D

    Wang, L., Li, J., Wu, Y .,et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 260, 35 Warren Jr, W., & Ho ffleit, D. 1987, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 19, p. 733, V ol. 19, 733

    2022

  60. [68]

    A., Danchi, W

    Woodruff, R. A., Danchi, W. C., Heap, S. R., et al . 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instru- ments, and Systems, 5, 024006

    2019

  61. [69]

    2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 228

    Yang, C., Ji, T., Li, Z., et al . 2025, The Astronomical Journal, 169, 228

    2025

  62. [70]

    Zombeck, M. V . 2006, Handbook of space astronomy and astrophysics (Cambridge University Press)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.